Difference (from revision 41 to 42)

Changed: 153c153

see raw transcript [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/2011-02-03_Ontology-Application-Framework/chat-transcript_raw_20110203atxt.txt here]. {nid 2MGF}
see raw transcript [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/2011-02-03_Ontology-Application-Framework/chat-transcript_raw_20110203a.txt here]. {nid 2MGF}

Changed: 157c157

(for better clarity, the version below is a [ re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript].)
(for better clarity, the version below is a [http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/2011-02-03_Ontology-Application-Framework/chat-transcript_edited_20110203c.txt re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript].)

Added: 162a163,678

}}}

{{{
PeterYim: . {nid 2N3D}
}}}

{{{
Welcome to the OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-2 - Ontology Application Framework - I - Thu
2011_02_03 {nid 2N3E}
}}}

{{{
Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology {nid 2N3F}
}}}

{{{
Session Title: Strawman for the Ontology Application Framework {nid 2N3G}
}}}

{{{
Session Co-chairs: Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto) & Dr. MichaelUschold (Semantic Arts) {nid 2N3H}
}}}

{{{
Panelists: {nid 2N3I}
}}}

{{{
* Dr. MichaelUschold (Semantic Arts) - "A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology
Applications" {nid 2N3J}
}}}

{{{
* Professor MichaelGruninger (U of Toronto) - "Notes for an Ontology Application Framework" {nid 2N3K}
}}}

{{{
* Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE) - "Ontologies & Applications" {nid 2N3L}
}}}

{{{
* Professor AlanRector (U of Manchester) - "Problems arising in applications: Background Knowledge
Representation, Data modelling & Ontologies" {nid 2N3M}
}}}

{{{
. {nid 2N3N}
}}}

{{{
Please refer to session details (dial-in, agenda, slides, etc.) at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_02_03 {nid 2N3O}
}}}

{{{
. {nid 2N3P}
}}}

{{{
anonymous morphed into PatBarkman {nid 2N3Q}
}}}

{{{
anonymous morphed into ToddSchneider {nid 2N3R}
}}}

{{{
anonymous1 morphed into BruceBray {nid 2N3S}
}}}

{{{
anonymous2 morphed into AmandaVizedom {nid 2N3T}
}}}

{{{
anonymous morphed into RamSriram {nid 2N3U}
}}}

{{{
Susan Turnbull (GSA) morphed into SusanTurnbull {nid 2N3V}
}}}

{{{
anonymous morphed into AntoinetteArsic {nid 2N3W}
}}}

{{{
AlanRector: Please put details of paper on chat show - the line looses some detail - thanks {nid 2N3X}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: @MichaelUschold - it's slide#2 (not #1) now {nid 2N3Y}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: slide#15 (not #14) {nid 2N3Z}
}}}

{{{
YuLin: where is it now? I got lost {nid 2N40}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: For some reason, our speakers haven't been calling out their slide numbers very
accurately, therefore (especially asynchronous participants) please bear with the situation, and try
to sync up to the content as they are presented {nid 2N41}
}}}

{{{
ArturoSanchez: @MichaelUschold: the main issue with all the approaches, as I understand them, is
that semantic information that drive the mapping is not explicitly represented, and therefore needs
to be mediated by humans and properties that are supposed to be preserved by the mappings is not
explicitly exposed. If you get the chance, I'd like to hear your opinion (as well as Michael
Gruninger's, Leo's, and Professor Rector's) Thanks! {nid 2N42}
}}}

{{{
ArturoSanchez: @MichaelUschold: Also, it is not clear to me how change management is represented in
all these approaches/architectures. That is to say, when the ontologies change, what happens? {nid 2N43}
}}}

{{{
ArturoSanchez: @MichaelUschold and the rest of the team: to document architectural concerns, I would
suggest to use the notations proposed by the Software Engineering Institute (CMU). "Documenting
Software Architectures", latest edition (Addison-Wesley) {nid 2N44}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: thanks Micheal {nid 2N45}
}}}

{{{
AmandaVizedom: Thank you Leo! {nid 2N46}
}}}

{{{
AntoinetteArsic: bye Leo {nid 2N47}
}}}

{{{
ToddSchneider: Leo, there are apps that allow the generation of source code from an ontology (e.g.,
Top Quadrant) {nid 2N48}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: MichaelGruninger is presenting ... on slide#2 now {nid 2N49}
}}}

{{{
ArturoSanchez: @ToddSchneider: it would be interesting to analyze--or come up with--software
development frameworks that support the lifecyle of ontologies, including automatic code generation
injected into the application and directly derived from the ontology/ies. {nid 2N4A}
}}}

{{{
ToddSchneider: Instead of using application as the distinguishing criteria it may be more effective
to use problem space. {nid 2N4B}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Todd: I agree that if the application is used for categorization, then we at least need a
mapping provided from problem categories to application categories. {nid 2N4C}
}}}

{{{
anonymous morphed into Peter Bahnsen {nid 2N4D}
}}}

{{{
ToddSchneider: Arturo, I've been referring to this as ontologically driven development (with the
subtext of displacing UML / SysML). {nid 2N4E}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Todd: ....keeping in mind that we want to provide information to people trying to make
the case to stakeholders that know what problems they are facing. i.e. I'm agreeing with you. {nid 2N4F}
}}}

{{{
ArturoSanchez: @ToddSchneider: I think MichaelGruninger's characterization is with respect to the
functionality that can be implemented by "ontology-based" or "ontology-driven" applications {nid 2N4G}
}}}

{{{
ArturoSanchez: @ToddSchneider: ... and therefore, the characterization is domain-independent ... {nid 2N4H}
}}}

{{{
ToddSchneider: Problems resolved by applications realized by functionality {nid 2N4I}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Arturo: I think Todd's point is that if I were trying to make the case to someone, say in
my company, I might know what problem I'm trying to solve, but may not be sure what functionality
would be best to invoke. Or even if I knew what functionality was appropriate, my deciding vice
president might not recognize it in those terms. {nid 2N4J}
}}}

{{{
ToddSchneider: @Steve, exactly. Referring to what John Sowa suggested, you have to convince someone
they have a problem (that your solution can solve). {nid 2N4K}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: We could provide guidance such as: Problem category --> Needed functionality -->
Ontological approach --> Benefits {nid 2N4L}
}}}

{{{
ToddSchneider: @Steve, sounds good and make a simple graphic. {nid 2N4M}
}}}

{{{
ArturoSanchez: @Todd & Steve: yes, your points are well taken, but that is why the summit has
diffferent tracks. This track is about "A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology
Applications". There are other tracks that address the concern you are expressing. Now, it would
also make sense to document the architecture of well-known exemplars of ontology-driven/based
applications, for specific domains, which CIOs and CEOs associated with these domains can relate to. {nid 2N4N}
}}}

{{{
AntoinetteArsic: It would be awesome to have instances of the ontologies for these in KM and
Decision Support. {nid 2N4O}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Arturo: Agreed. {nid 2N4P}
}}}

{{{
ToddSchneider: @Arturo, I think 'Framework' is the important part, 'application' may not be the best
qualifier/criteria for categorization (relative to the larger goals of the summit). {nid 2N4Q}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: = Alan Rector presenting now = {nid 2N4R}
}}}

{{{
ArturoSanchez: Very good presentations ... sorry I must leave now. I'll catch up through the Wiki. {nid 2N4S}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: @Peter Bahnsen - Hello, would you let us know which organization are you affiliated with,
please? {nid 2N4T}
}}}

{{{
Peter Bahnsen: @ PeterYim I'm contracting with the GSA and am here on invite of Susan Turnbull {nid 2N4U}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: @Peter Bahnsen - welcome! we are glad you can join us today {nid 2N4V}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: @SusanTurnbull - Hi Susan! {nid 2N4W}
}}}

{{{
Peter Bahnsen: Thanks for the welcome! I am new to the ontology community {nid 2N4X}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: @Peter Bahnsen - hope you like what you see here! {nid 2N4Y}
}}}

{{{
Antoinette Arsic: on slide 5 {nid 2N4Z}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: @Antoinette - thank you {nid 2N50}
}}}

{{{
MichaelGruninger: I agree with Arturo -- the purpose of this track is to provide the frame of
reference for discussing how ontologies are used and how to demonstrate benefits. {nid 2N51}
}}}

{{{
AmandaVizedom: @Steve and all: I think we do need a multi-dimensional categorization. As suggested,
there are things we'd normally think of as "application"-oriented, such as the functional
requirements and technology context. There are also user characterizations, subject matter
considerations (single-domain/cross domain), process considerations, organizational goals (things
down the road for which ontos should be reusable? mandates? legal, policy, other issues?), and on. {nid 2N52}
}}}

{{{
MichaelGruninger: If we tell someone that ontologies provide the technology that they need to solve
their problems, we need to ensure that they understand exactly what is being delivered. {nid 2N53}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Michael: Agreed, but someone should provide a mapping from problem categories to
application categories. Seems like that would either be this track, or possibly Track 4 - Strategies
for making the case. {nid 2N54}
}}}

{{{
MichaelGruninger: @Steve: What are examples of problem categories? {nid 2N55}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: @AmandaVizedom, MichaelGruninger and All - "multi-dimensional" is the key challenge ...
how can we effectively document and present it {nid 2N56}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Michael: Let's see... "We don't know how to assign the right expert to a customer
account", or "I'm trying to optimize the load balancing in my electrical grid". These are off the
top of my head. Some answers may be obvious, some not. Kind of gets into systems design. {nid 2N57}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Michael: I just realized you asked for categories, not examples. I'll have to think
further. {nid 2N58}
}}}

{{{
AmandaVizedom: I don't think is news as an idea, but I've had a great opportunity to experience and
observe the factors recently. I've been working on Ontology Design Pattern & Best Practice
documentation for ontology developers within our project, translating general ontology best
practices and ODPs to specifically what to do in our context. Because target audience is (a) often
only lightly trained, learning on the job, and (b) not necessarily interested in more general level,
except where understanding it will help them again later, and (c) mixed in desire/ability/tendency
to find related external resources and try to understand and integrate them, I need to be able to
articulate, in complementary guidance, in what ways these docs are tailored. Meantime, I'm thinking
about how the tailored docs could be part of a larger body of guidance docs in which context one
could find the bits that apply to ones own cases. I've not gotten to the point of listing such
factors (not part of client task, of course), but the variety is very salient. {nid 2N59}
}}}

{{{
YuLin: @MichaelGruninger: I don't think gene sequencing is using ontology technology. Could you
please give an example? {nid 2N5A}
}}}

{{{
BruceBray: sequence ontology is an evolving example of use of ontology for representing gene
sequences see: http://www.sequenceontology.org/ {nid 2N5B}
}}}

{{{
MichaelGruninger: @Yu Lin: I was referring to ontologies (such as the Sequence Ontology) that are
used to support the analysis of gene sequence data e.g. query all databases for all genes whose
transcripts are edited, or trans-spliced, or are bound by a particular protein. {nid 2N5C}
}}}

{{{
YuLin: @Bruce Thank you very much. I think it rather a tool for data integration than for the
sequencing analyzing. {nid 2N5D}
}}}

{{{
YuLin: Thank you Michael, I got what you meant {nid 2N5E}
}}}

{{{
ToddSchneider: Thank you to all the speakers. Have to go. {nid 2N5F}
}}}

{{{
AldenDima: @PeterYim,@SteveRay - For me, a high-level way of presenting the categories revolves
around saying that ontologies enable efficient 1) coordination 2) cooperation and 3) coherence
between sofware systems and their users. I'm sure that there are other high-level categories as
well. {nid 2N5G}
}}}

{{{
FabianNeuhaus: @Alan: about integrity constraints: it might be of interest to you that there is a
W3C Member Submission called "Validating Semantic Web Data with OWL Integrity Constraints" on its
way {nid 2N5H}
}}}

{{{
AlanRector: Glad to hear it - I have been concerned that this stream was critical but not getting
the attention we require. {nid 2N5I}
}}}

{{{
RamSriram: @MichaelGruninger: I believe the track's title is "Application Framework." I presume you
are going to synthesize the presentations into a "framework" perspective. Such a framework should
help us to resolve various views for ontologies and applications. {nid 2N5J}
}}}

{{{
AlanRector: One important difference is uses of ontologies as payload or "coding" or a common
structured vocabulary - e.g. the Gene Ontology or SNOMED - and use of ontologies as structure for
software or standards. {nid 2N5K}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: Search Engine Optimization. Were looking for a way to use an ontology for SEO because we
have a dataset that blends and makes really no distinction between a broad selection of knowledge
domains (for example: biology, physics, cosmology ...) In the vast number of data sources these
subjects are considered separate disciplines -- segmented. Our dataset defines commonalities and
treats everything as one subject. Well, you might think that sounds great ... but it kinda sucks for
SEO because our web content is semantically very different than the rest of the web so we score
poorly based on the existing Search Engine algorithms. So, were looking at creating Topic Pages
based on our data. Then when those Topic Pages get crawled we believe we will begin to educate
Search Engines about the commonalties between various disciplines and that will enhance our search
engine scores. Then we also need to make our data (which is in English) searchable in multiple
languages. And frankly, we also need an ontology to search our data more effectively ourselves. {nid 2N5L}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: so, those are our use cases: SEO, multi-lingual & enhancing our own search capabilities
of a dataset that's likely unprecedented in it's cross-disciplinarily nature {nid 2N5M}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: wouldn't the use cases be the set of system requirements for developing the ap
framework?? {nid 2N5N}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Pat: What is your dataset? Could you expand on this? {nid 2N5O}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: @steve our data is in the form of text, video & audio, discusses all aspects of science
as one subject {nid 2N5P}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: ...kinda hard to describe other than as a "complete" dataset {nid 2N5Q}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Pat: Could you say what purpose your are trying to fulfill? Education? Consumer service
provision? .... {nid 2N5R}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: OK ... thanks for that clarification ... Ap FW summit/community {nid 2N5S}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: @Steve - education, primarily {nid 2N5T}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: @Pat: So perhaps educational curriculum material might be an ontology. In this forum we
have talked about an ontology for curricula (last year in fact). {nid 2N5U}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: @Steve, so I can probably find something in the archived discussion threads on that,
right? {nid 2N5V}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: thanks {nid 2N5W}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: Yes, I'll try to dig up some links. {nid 2N5X}
}}}

{{{
JimDisbrow: The Ontology Case Study I tried to put together (on an Energy-Water-Climate nexus) has
failed so far. The lack of funding may be the single largest factor. The lack of volunteers (and not
getting done what was needed) was also a factor. {nid 2N5Y}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: @AmandaVizedom - please capture you point here ... it's great! {nid 2N5Z}
}}}

{{{
AmandaVizedom: Here's the point I just made on the call: In addition to looking at and collecting
use cases, there is tremendous value in looking at them comparatively and *specifically* looking at
what worked and didn't work in each case. Doing this kind of collection and comparison of LL in many
use cases is also valuable, as discussed a bit last year, for identifying Best Practices and
building that body of shared knowledge we don't yet have. But comparing what worked and didn't in
different use cases is often just the light one needs to bring out the dimensions (and important
points along those dimensions) we're looking to understand. Comparing use cases with LL, we can ask
What are the differences between those cases, such that one thing worked here and another thing worked there? {nid 2N60}
}}}

{{{
AmandaVizedom: In follow-up, Michael, Alan, and others noted the difficulty in getting people to
talk about their failures, and that these haven't been solicited as part of the summit use case
call. Michael added this to that call. I agree, and having been aiming to get a workshop set up at
one of the major conferences to talk about use cases and LL, collaborating to identify both
meaningful differences between the use cases and best practices. {nid 2N62}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: Great session ... fantastic presentations from all the panelists! Thanks you All! Bye! {nid 2N63}
}}}

{{{
PatBarkman: thanks! {nid 2N64}
}}}

{{{
AlanRector: Thanks bye {nid 2N65}
}}}

{{{
AntoinetteArsic: Thank you bye {nid 2N66}
}}}

{{{
SteveRay: Logging out. Thanks Michael and team for another great session. {nid 2N67}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: I will keep the chat board going until 11:30am PST (i.e. for another 8 minutes or so) ...
past that, what goes into the chat-board will not get captured into the session proceedings. {nid 2N68}
}}}

{{{
PeterYim: - session ended 11:21am PST -- {nid 2N69}